P. v. Angelos
Filed 7/16/13 P. v. Angelos CA2/4
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
>
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIMBERLY ANGELOS, Defendant and Appellant. | B245599 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA084708) |
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Kimberly Angelos.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant Kimberly
Angelos appeals from the judgment entered after her no contest plea to one
count of possession of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). A second possession count was dismissed. Defendant was placed on Proposition 36
probation for one year and was assessed various fines and fees.
This
appeal is from the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence under
Penal Code section 1538.5. Her appointed
counsel filed a Wende brief. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On February 14, 2013, we
directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of counsel’s brief to
defendant and notified defendant of her right to respond within 30 days. We received no response.
The
evidence elicited at the preliminary
hearing was that, on February
26, 2012, Gardena police
pulled over a vehicle with expired registration. Defendant was a passenger in the car. The arresting officer testified that he
explained the reason for the stop and asked both occupants of the car whether
they were on probation or parole. Both
said “no†but volunteered that they had been arrested on narcotics charges in
the past. After the driver consented to
a search of the car, both occupants were directed to step out. They were patted down and asked to sit at the
curb. According to the driver, defendant
did not sit down at the curb but stood on the sidewalk.
Defendant’s
purse remained on the front passenger seat of the car. When one of the officers asked if there was
anything illegal inside, defendant responded that there was a pipe used to
smoke methamphetamine. The officer
recovered the pipe, and defendant was placed under arrest five minutes into the
traffic stop. Afterward, when defendant
was strip searched during the booking process, a plastic baggie containing
heroin and methamphetamine fell out of her underwear.
Defendant
was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a),
11377, subd. (a).) Her motion to
suppress the evidence under the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution was denied at the preliminary hearing, as was her renewed motion to
suppress. The court declined to find
that defendant abandoned the purse she left behind when exiting the car. It found the traffic stop and driver’s
consent to search the car were valid, defendant had not been detained when she
answered the officer’s question about the contents of the purse, and her answer
gave police probable cause to search the purse.
We have
reviewed the entire record under People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. No arguable
issues for appeal exist.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We
concur:
WILLHITE, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
